ACEC Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACEC – Relevance and Importance
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACECs, Relevance and Importance, Monticello Field Office, July 2005 ACEC Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACEC – Relevance and Importance TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background - Areas of Environmental Concern ………………….……….. 3 FLPMA …………………………………………. 3 43CFR 1610.7-2 ………………………………… 3 BLM Manual 1613 ……………………………… 3 NOI – BLM Monticello Field Office ……………. 4 San Juan County Perspectives on ACECs ………. 4 State of Utah Perspectives on ACECs …………… 4 ACECs and Wilderness Study Areas ……………... 5 2. The ACEC Process – Table ……………………………………………….. 6 3. Summary ………………………………………………………………….. 7 Table 3.1 MFO ACECs from 1991 RMP ……..…... 7 Table 3.2 Nominated ACEC by BLM FOs ..……… 7 Table 3.3 Nominated ACECs by SUWA ………… 8 Table 3,4 Summary Table of Potential ACECs …. 8 Table 3.5 MFO ID Team …………………………. 9 4. Existing ACECs – Monticello Field Office ………………………………. 10 Alkali Ridge ACEC ……………………………... 10 Bridger Jack Mesa ACEC ……………………… 10 Butler Wash ACEC ……………………………… 11 Cedar Mesa ACEC ……………………………… 12 Dark Canyon ACEC …………………………….. 13 Hovenweep ACEC ……………………………….. 14 Indian Creek ACEC ……………………………… 15 Lavender Mesa ACEC …………………………… 16 Scenic Highway Corridor ACEC ………………… 16 Shay Canyon ACEC ……………………………... 17 Table 4.1: Special Management Consideration for BLM ACECs designated in the 1991 RMP ………….. 18 5. Nominated ACECs ………………………………………………………. 19 Lockhart Basin …………………………............... 19 Valley of the Gods ……………………………… 20 Letter from SUWA ………………………………. .. 22 Table 5.2 - Nominated by SUWA ………………… 24 1. Canyonlands ………………………………… 24 2. Cedar Mesa ………………………………….. 27 3. Dark Canyon ………………………………… 29 4. Monument Canyon ………………………….. 31 5. Redrock Plateau ……………………………… 33 6. San Juan River ………………………………. 36 7. White Canyon ……………………………….. 39 Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACECs, Monticello Field Office, Relevance and Importance, July 2005 6. Evaluation Process and Relevance and Importance Criteria …………… 42 The Scope of the Evaluation Process 6.1 Evaluation of existing ACECs ………………... 41 6.2 Identifying Potentially-relevant Values …….. .. 41 6.3 Determining Relevance …………………….. .. 41 6.4 Determining Importance ……………………… 42 6.5 Special Management Needed …………………. 43 6.6 Mapping of Potential ACECs ……………….. 44 7. References ……………………………………………………………….. 44 Appendix A: Relevance and Importance Criteria Evaluation For Existing and Nominated ACECs Existing ACECs: Alkali Ridge Existing ACEC ………………………….. 1 Bridger Jack Mesa Existing ACEC …………………… 5 Butler Wash Existing ACEC …………………………. 9 Cedar Mesa Existing ACEC ………………………….. 13 Dark Canyon Existing ACEC ………………………… 22 Hovenweep Existing ACEC ………………………….. 26 Indian Creek Existing ACEC ………………………… 31 Lavender Mesa Existing ACEC ……………………… 35 Scenic Highway Existing ACEC …………………….. 39 Shay Canyon Existing ACEC ………………………... 43 ACEC Nominations: Lockhart Basin ………………………………………. 47 Valley of the Gods …………………………………... 50 Canyonlands ………………………………………… 54 Cedar Mesa ………………………………………….. 58 Dark Canyon ………………………………………… 62 Monument Canyon ………………………………….. 65 Redrock Plateau ……………………………………… 68 San Juan River ………………………………………. 71 White Canyon ……………………………………….. 75 Appendix B: List of Existing and Nominated ACECs as Evaluated in Appendix A, Monticello Field Office ……………………… 78 Maps • Existing ACECs • BLM Nominated ACECs • Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) Nominated ACECs • Potential ACECs 2 Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACECs, Monticello Field Office, Relevance and Importance, July 2005 1. Background - Areas of Environmental Concern, Monticello RMP The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) requires that in the development of land use plans, priority be given to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concerns (ACECs). It defines ACECs as public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards. FLPMA In the development and revision of land use plans, the Secretary shall…give priority to the designation and protection of areas of critical environmental concern. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Title II, Sec 202(c) 3 “The term “areas of critical environmental concern” [referred to as ACECs] means areas within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and safety from natural hazards”. FLPMA, Title I, Sec. 103 (a) 43 CFR 1610.7-2 In order to be a potential ACEC, both of the following criteria shall be met [See Sections 6.3 and 6.4]: 1. Relevance – There shall be present a significant historic, cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or other natural system or process; or a natural hazard. 2. Importance – The above described value, resource, system, process of hazard shall have substantial significance and cause. This generally requires qualities of more than local significance and special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern. BLM Manual 1613 The BLM manual 1613 provides direction for identifying, analyzing, designing, monitoring and managing ACECs. Key points are: • The ACEC designation indicates to the public that the BLM recognizes that an area has significant values and has established special management measures to protect those values. • Designation of ACECs is only done through the resource management planning process, either in an RMP itself or in a plan amendment. • To be designated as an ACEC, an area must require special management attention to protect the important and relevant values. • Potential ACECs are identified as early as possible in the planning process. • Existing ACECs are subject to reconsideration when plans are revised. • Members of the public or other agencies may nominate an area for consideration as a potential ACEC. BLM personnel are encouraged to recommend areas for consideration as ACECs. • There are no formal or special procedures associated with nomination. 3 Evaluations for Existing and Nominated ACECs, Monticello Field Office, Relevance and Importance, July 2005 • An interdisciplinary team evaluates potential ACECs to determine if they meet the relevance and importance criteria. • If an area is found not to meet the relevance and importance criteria, the analysis supporting that conclusion must be included in the Resource Management Plan (RMP) and associated EIS. Notice of Intent (NOI) – BLM Monticello Field Office The BLM Monticello and Moab Field Offices published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register, Vol. 68, No. 107, Wednesday, June 4, 2003 requesting information and input from the public on the RMP process, including special designations. San Juan County Perspectives on ACECs A letter dated April 12, 2004 from the Chairman of the San Juan County Commission expressed the concerns of the Commission as follows: “The troubling part of this [issue]centers around a few subjective words. Words such as “irreparable”, “substantial”, “significance”, and “distinctiveness” are all words that can have many meanings to many people or groups of people. What someone might view as substantial, significant or distinctive we might view as acceptable or common place. The word “irreparable” raises the bar substantially when used in this context. Under the definition it means destroyed or ruined beyond repair. At this point there is little evidence that this is occurring in many areas being nominated for ACEC status. In fact, the mere designation as an ACEC might actually cause harm to an area because of the attention called to what the agency is trying to protect.” “Another issue is that many groups want to use ACEC in place of, and in the same context as wilderness. In other words, allow no use of the area. This is totally unacceptable to San Juan County. With the tool box that BLM and other federal land management agencies is afforded, special designations, such as ACECs should be made only when there is eminent danger, or an overwhelming and compelling threat to a resource that the agency has no other means of protecting.” “In our opinion, some of the proposed ACECs that have been nominated to date are not threatened, in eminent danger of being threatened, nor is there a special hazard or a compelling need justifying special protection. The agency has tools for managing off highway vehicles, oil and gas exploration, or threatened and endangered habitats without creating large expanses of public lands in special protective zones. … Again, we ask that you consider these special designations only as a last resort, not a first option.” State of Utah Perspective on ACECs The State of Utah formalized their position on ACECs in Utah Code Section 63-38d-401(7)(a) enacted by the Utah Legislature, and signed by the Governor of Utah in 2004. “The state’s support for designation of Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) as defined in 43 USC 1702, within federal land management plans will be withheld until: - it is clearly demonstrated that the proposed area contains historic, cultural or scenic values, fish or wildlife resources, or natural processes, which are unique or substantially significant on a regional